One of the richest men in the world says a £1.7m painting he bought at Christie's is a fake, and today he takes his fight to the High Court to get his money back.

Prolific art collector and oil tycoon, Viktor Vekselberg, says the nude painting he bought in 2005 could not possibly be by prominent Russian artist Boris Kustodiev - as it was signed years after his death.

The 56-year-old, believed to be worth more than £7bn and rated 64th richest person in the world, is calling on a bank of top art experts to prove that the painting of a nude woman reclining on a bed, known as 'Odalisque', is by an unknown artist.

Real or fake: Viktor Vekselberg believes the painting 'Odalisque', by Boris Kustodiev and sold to him by Christie's, is by another artist

But Christie's are standing firmly by the attribution they made before the sale and are calling on their own eminent team of experts to establish the painting as an authentic Kustodiev.

RELATED ARTICLES

Share this article

The battle to prove the the providence of the painting will last 19 days, and centre around a tiny signature in cyrillic script - said to be that of Kustodiev and dated 1919.

64th richest man: Viktor Vekselberg also collects Fabergé eggs

Henry Legge QC, for Aurora Fine Arts, through which the painting was purchased, said careful analysis of the signature showed it 'running over' existing cracks in the paint and indicated that it was not written until the late 1940s. Kustodiev died in 1927.

Also highlighting the use of an aluminium-based pigment on the canvas, the QC said it was of a type which was not commonly used by artists until after Kustodiev's death.

'Odalisque' was returned to Christie's after doubts about its authenticity were raised after the sale.

The painting was placed on an easel in court for Mr Justice Newey to view.

However, the case began with a dispute over which side should have physical custody of the painting, which Aurora's legal team wants to subject to further tests.

Mr Legge said microscopic, extremely high resolution, photography of the signature could prove conclusively whether it was appended in 1919 or 'considerably later'.

The famous auction house Christie's stand by their original research into the painting

He added that, if a 'cross-sectional
test' of the signature showed a layer of dust between it and the pigment
beneath, that would also support Aurora's case.

James
Aldridge, for Christie's, did not object to fresh photographs being
taken, but said cross-sectional testing would be 'unethical' and
'extraordinarily invasive', given the very small size of the signature.

Through a detailed comparison between
'Odalisque' and authenticated works by Kustodiev, Christie's insists
that the technique, subject matter and other similarities support the
attribution to the Russian master.

They
also say the Aluminium-based pigment identified in the painting was in
use by artists in 1919, although not as commonly as in the 1930s.

The
High Court hearing - the legal costs of which are likely to equal - if
not exceed - the sum paid for the painting seven years ago, continues.